Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences

Macro Roundup


Thursday, November 3, 2022

AI Summary. A Media Research Center study found mainstream broadcast coverage of Republican candidates in the run-up to midterm elections was negative 87% of the time, compared with 67% for Democrats, with one Republican candidate receiving 100% negative coverage. The study also found the sitting Democratic president received 16% of airtime versus 48% for his Republican predecessor in an earlier midterm cycle.

Victor Nava New York Post
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

According to @MediaResearch, Mainstream media coverage of Republican candidates was negative 87% of the time leading up to the midterm elections, compared to 67% for Democrats.

Is broadcast election coverage more negative toward one party than the other?

Core argument: Mainstream media coverage of Republican candidates ahead of the midterm elections was negative 87% of the time versus 67% for Democratic candidates, according to a Media Research Center study.

A study by the Media Research Center reveals that mainstream media coverage of Republican candidates was negative 87% of the time leading up to the midterm elections, compared to 67% for Democrats. This disparity highlights a significant media bias, with GOP figures like Herschel Walker, Mehmet Oz, and Kari Lake receiving particularly harsh scrutiny. Kari Lake, for instance, faced 100% negative coverage. In contrast, President Biden's media exposure was less critical than former President Trump's during the 2018 midterms, with Biden receiving only 16% of airtime compared to Trump's 48%. The study underscores the potential impact of media narratives on public perception and electoral outcomes.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Mainstream media coverage of Republican candidates ahead of the midterm elections was negative 87% of the time versus 67% for Democratic candidates, according to a Media Research Center study.
  2. The Media Research Center study found Kari Lake received 100% negative coverage, with Herschel Walker and Mehmet Oz also drawing harsh scrutiny.
  3. President Biden received 16% of airtime compared with 48% for former President Trump during the 2018 midterms, and Biden's coverage was less critical, according to the Media Research Center study.

“…Republican candidates are facing substantially more scrutiny in the mainstream media than Democrats leading up to the midterm elections, with news outlets airing negative coverage of the GOPers 87% of the time, A study found.Democrats, meanwhile, were on the receiving end of bad press 67% of the time, according to the study conducted by the conservative Media Research Center…”

Victor Nava, "Mainstream media gives GOP negative press 87% of the time in midterm run-up: study,"New York Post, November 3, 2022, https://nypost.com/2022/11/03/mainstream-media-gives-gop-87-negative-press-in-midterm-run-up-study/

Mainstream media gives GOP negative press 87% of the time in midterm run-up: study

Republican candidates are facing substantially more scrutiny in the mainstream media than Democrats leading up to the midterm elections, with news outlets airing negative coverage of the GOPers 87% of the time, A study found.

Democrats, meanwhile, were on the receiving end of bad press 67% of the time, according to the study conducted by the conservative Media Research Center.

The study of ABC, CBS and NBC’s nightly newscasts also found that President Biden is drawing far less criticism in 2022 than former President Donald Trump did during the 2018 midterm elections.

Trump accounted for 48% of all midterm campaign airtime on nightly newscasts in 2018, more than all the congressional and gubernatorial candidates combined, and it was mostly negative, according to MRC.

In comparison, Biden coverage during the 2022 midterms has accounted for only 16% of the networks’ coverage. And while the president has received mostly negative coverage during the study’s time frame, it is on a far smaller scale than Trump did - seven negative comments made against Biden compared to 54 for Trump.

Overall, the study found that Biden and Democratic candidates drew 13 positive comments and 26 negative ones, or 67% negative.

The GOP, however, were hammered with 94 negative comments and only 14 positive statements, or 87% negative.

MRC further breaks down the numbers and finds that three Republican candidates and one Democrat generated most of the bad press.

Republicans Herschel Walker, Mehmet Oz and Kari Lake, and Democrat John Fetterman.

Fetterman’s 81% negative coverage was the worst of any Democrat and mostly centered on his widely panned debate performance against Oz last month.

Arizona Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake had the most negative score of all candidates with a 100% bad press rating.

The study took place between Sept. 1 and Oct. 26.

Friday, November 11, 2022

AI Summary. Underlying inflation gauges suggest inflation may have peaked: the Cleveland Federal Reserve's "trimmed mean" measure, which excludes the largest price outliers, has dipped slightly, while the Atlanta Federal Reserve's "sticky price" measure, covering goods and services whose prices change least often, is unchanged. Both remain very elevated.

John Authers Bloomberg
Date Posted:

.@JohnAuthers argues that the Cleveland Fed “trimmed mean” and the Atlanta Fed “sticky” inflation measure suggest inflation has peaked.

Do underlying inflation gauges suggest inflation has peaked?

Core argument: The Cleveland Fed's trimmed mean inflation measure, which excludes the largest outlier components in either direction, has dipped slightly, while the Atlanta Fed's sticky price measure, covering goods and services whose prices are hardest to change, is unchanged.

Underlying metrics confirmed that this time might really be the peak, in a way they conspicuously failed to do earlier this year when core CPI last seemed to have started a descent. The chart shows the “trimmed mean” inflation produced by the Cleveland Fed that excludes the biggest outliers in either direction from the index’s components and takes the average of the rest; and the “sticky” inflation measure produced by the Atlanta Fed, which looks only at the goods and services whose prices are hardest to change. In practice, when these measures rise, it’s taken as a sign that inflationary pressure is gaining strength; it’s good to see that while both remain very elevated, the trimmed mean has dipped slightly, while sticky price inflation is unchanged.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The Cleveland Fed's trimmed mean inflation measure, which excludes the largest outlier components in either direction, has dipped slightly, while the Atlanta Fed's sticky price measure, covering goods and services whose prices are hardest to change, is unchanged.
  2. Both the trimmed mean and sticky price inflation measures remain very elevated, though rises in these measures are taken as a sign that inflationary pressure is gaining strength.
  3. Underlying inflation metrics suggest this may be the peak, in a way they failed to do earlier in the year when core CPI appeared to have begun a descent.

AI Summary. Newer macroeconomic theory using forward-looking rather than adaptive expectations holds that inflation is stable under an interest rate target and can fade on its own even when interest rates sit below the inflation rate. Under the fiscal theory of the price level, a burst of inflation devalues government debt and ends once the real value of that debt is restored.

John Cochrane The Grumpy Economist
Date Posted:

.@johnHCochrane argues that inflation potentially peaking with the Federal Funds rate < CPI is evidence that the fiscal theory of the price level is the right way to understand inflation

Can inflation fade on its own with interest rates below inflation?

Core argument: CPI data suggest inflation might be peaking, with other news pointing to inflation easing, though the author says it is too soon to declare victory.

The news of the moment is that inflation might--might--be peaking. I just present the CPI to make the point, but there seems to be a lot of news suggesting that inflation is easing off. Newer theory, which primarily uses rational (better, forward-looking or model-consistent) rather than adaptive expectations, says that inflation is stable under an interest rate target. It follows that inflation can go away all on its own, even with interest rates substantially below inflation. With fiscal theory + rational expectations, we are having a burst of inflation to devalue government debt, as a response to the 2020-2021 fiscal blowout. But once the price level has risen enough to bring the real value of debt back, it’s over. Until the next shock hits. If inflation fades away despite interest rates below the inflation rate, we have a rather striking confirmation of this rational expectations view, with stable inflation, relative to the traditional spiral-away view. So, are we headed there? It’s too soon for this cautious commenter to declare victory, but I am willing to provide context and say I’m watching anxiously!

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. CPI data suggest inflation might be peaking, with other news pointing to inflation easing, though the author says it is too soon to declare victory.
  2. Under rational, forward-looking expectations, inflation is stable with an interest rate target, so inflation can fade on its own even when interest rates sit substantially below the inflation rate.
  3. Fiscal theory combined with rational expectations frames the inflation burst as a response to the 2020–2021 fiscal blowout that devalues government debt, ending once the price level has risen enough to restore the real value of that debt.

AI Summary. Republican voters outnumbered Democrats in the midterm electorate according to AP VoteCast, yet Democrats won. The analyst argues the Supreme Court's Dobbs ruling ending federal abortion rights was the major factor, citing stronger Democratic special-election results afterward and a 2.7% rise in the Democratic share of primary voters.

Eric Levitz New York Magazine
Date Posted:

.@Davidshor notes that Republicans likely turned out at higher rates than democrats in 2022 and suspects the reason Democrats won independents was anger at the Dobbs decision.

.@Davidshor notes that Republicans likely turned out at higher rates than democrats in 2022 and suspects the reason...

Why did Democrats win the midterms despite being outnumbered by Republican voters?

Core argument: David Shor argues Dobbs was the major factor in the 2022 midterms, noting the share of primary voters who were Democrats rose about 2.7 percent after the decision and that Democrats performed much better in special elections held afterward.

Republicans literally outnumbered Democrats, according to the AP’s VoteCast. And yet Democrats still won. What’s really unique about this midterm cycle is that Republicans created a radical policy change — and one that was quite unpopular — without controlling the presidency or the legislature. And that allowed Democrats to plausibly run as the party that was going to make less change than the opposition, which is a super-unusual situation. In our ad testing, messaging about reproductive rights tested very well. Dobbs had an immediate impact on election outcomes. If you look at special elections before and after the decision, Democrats did much better in the latter. And the percentage of primary voters who were Democrats increased by about 2.7 percent after Dobbs. So I think Dobbs was really the major factor.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. David Shor argues Dobbs was the major factor in the 2022 midterms, noting the share of primary voters who were Democrats rose about 2.7 percent after the decision and that Democrats performed much better in special elections held afterward.
  2. Republicans outnumbered Democrats among 2022 midterm voters, according to the AP's VoteCast, yet Democrats still won.
  3. Shor describes the 2022 cycle as unusual because Republicans created a radical, unpopular policy change without controlling the presidency or the legislature, letting Democrats run as the party that would make less change, with reproductive-rights messaging testing very well in his ad testing.